I'm currently looking to rework this sword. Largely just pulling of the balance toward the hilt really.

I would like some advice in removing the pommel nut/screw temporarily. Other then that I've obtained some 2 oz. sink weights and I've been trying to think up some way to affix them inside the hilt, if at all possible, they weren't much and if it turns out to be a bust I can always give them to someone. Indeed even if I never succeed in re-balancing this item it's still a decent sword.

But overall I always have the incurable itch to make a sword my own, I did so with my Windlass 15th century longsword and I'll probably do so here, but take the knowledge acquired from the windlass to work it a little better.

Overall I'm working to move the weight down so it's a bit subtler in movement while still devastating at the cut.

any help would truly be appreciated gentlemen.
Attachment: 103.91 KB, Viewed: 4522 timesthis be my blade.

Purpose: Discussion with a colleague raised the issue of a grip need on the center portion of the scabbard. Largely this is done to provide a satisfactory grip and rust prevention system on the all steel scabbard, cutting down on cleaning and allowing a bit of comfort and aesthetically accessories.

Opinions: Acceptable, matches grip in color, seems a bit sporty though (The Wilson logo on the material has seen to that).

Notes: There has to be a bloody way to remove the pommel nut, it's just a damn round washer after bloody all and of course all this begs the question is the handle hollow enough to allow the extra weight and still leave room for proper reassembly? Such theoretical madness . . . . . ah the work of a (bad) amateur craftsmen is never done.

The nut at the end of the pommel either just screws on or in a few cases has been peened. The screwed on ones just simply screw off. The peened ones you will need to take a file and remove the peened over section. Next is going to be the real fun part... removing the cross pin that really holds the hilt together where the ears project. Overal if your not planning on changing the hilt leave it together... The place these new 1796 need the most help is that the blade is forward heavy... if you look for a comparison of an origional to the new ones you will find that the old ones had a lot more distal taper to them... so you will either need a belt sander or a lot of sand paper and blocks to take a good bit off each side of the blade towards the last 1/3 of the blade.

Be careful when you deal with the hilt! They are just cast iron and are very brittle. When using the blade for another project, I craked the knickle bow in half with a rubber mattet! Very poor quality.

As you probably know since you got the cold steel brand, Lynn and the boys are some of the worlds most experienced cutters. As Lynn explains in the video the Blucher saber was made with this type of balance for a reason, both historically and in modern day recreating it.
Does it feel wrong compared to an original you've held? Did they not capture the dynamics of it perfectly or is there some other reason for you wanting to change it? I'm asking because I haven't actually handled one of the cold steel Bluchers yet and I'm curious since I want one too.

Is it the old issue with why so many modern day fencers not feel comfortable with tip heavy sabers?
There's always personal preference but also technique and fencing system differences between how to use a tip heavy saber compared to a tip light one. A tip-light saber you can move around and even just flick of the wrist for a quick attack, while a tip heavy one, even an overall light but still tip heavy one, you move into to load up and use the whole body to move it from guard to guard or it becomes "slow". You can't force it to change direction in a cut either, as you can with a blade balanced close to the grip. This all takes a lot of practice to find fluidity in and it's a different way of thinking altogether than some of the popular modern fencing systems. Some of those aren't even at all compatible with this type of weapon while others are. This means you get a whole range of between "it's really poorly balanced" to "WOW" with the same saber depending on who you ask to check it out. It's not that anyone's wrong, it's just what they're used to, their frame of reference and possibly the core ideology or the particular brand of martial training they have.
What you do get "for free" with a Blucher is the extra power in the cut. The rest you need to work extra with. But changing the balance to closer to the handle, especially weighing it, will weaken the cut.

Something one can do is to make the entire assembly lighter but it's tricky to get right.
If I was to do that I'd disassemble the parts, grind thin the blade evenly while still keeping the wedge shape cross section (and cooling not to lose temper) and bore out the handle parts. The idea would be to keep the balance point where it was originally to keep the dynamics of the saber, while making it overall lighter and easier and quicker to move. This way you'd still get devastaing power in the cut while it's also really light.

If you're really preferring a quicker blade with less tip heaviness that you can flick with the wrist, and the lightning quick but less powerful cut this results in, I'd suggest you get a Shamshir type saber rather than re-making this one.

Last edited by Johan Gemvik on Thu 23 Feb, 2012 2:20 pm; edited 2 times in total

Lynn and the boys are some of the worlds most experienced cutters.
The Blucher saber was made with this type of balance for a reason, both historically and in modern day recreating it.

Nevertheless, the original sabre was generally lighter (depending on maker, of course). Other Cold Steel swords (e.g. the 1917 Cutlass) have the same problem. The hilt and basket of the 1917 is also oversized (on purpose?).

The people at Cold Steel may be experienced cutters but I really doubt they are more experienced than the dragoons and hussars of the 18th-19th centuries. ;)

Lynn and the boys are some of the worlds most experienced cutters.
The Blucher saber was made with this type of balance for a reason, both historically and in modern day recreating it.

Nevertheless, the original sabre was generally lighter (depending on maker, of course). Other Cold Steel swords (e.g. the 1917 Cutlass) have the same problem. The hilt and basket of the 1917 is also oversized (on purpose?).

The people at Cold Steel may be experienced cutters but I really doubt they are more experienced than the dragoons and hussars of the 18th-19th centuries. ;)

Thanks Paul! That explains it.
No, I'm all with you on that. ;)

So then, my idea of overall lightening it might work to make it perfectly accurate? As you may have noticed in other threads I like perfect accuracy in reproduced historical items. It tends to fix a lot of the doesn't feel right issues people get with swords too. Funny how that works out so often.

So hilt pieces are wrong on this one too? And the balance point, is that in the right or wrong place?
Can you show us what hilt parts are oversize or wrong on this model and what they should be like so they can be changed. Then thinning the blade like I mentioned could work.
Wasn't there a thread about this a while back? I remember discussing it before now that you bring it up.

This reminds me, we really should have a thread specifically about notes on accuracy modifications to various swords and other weapons on the current market. So much of what's being sold today needs anything bewtween minor touches to a complete re-work to be the photo copy accurate I and many others here want.

So hilt pieces are wrong on this one too? And the balance point, is that in the right or wrong place?
Can you show us what hilt parts are oversize or wrong on this model and what they should be like so they can be changed. Then thinning the blade like I mentioned could work.
Wasn't there a thread about this a while back? I remember discussing it before now that you bring it up.

I'm talking about the 1917 Cutlass, which I own, not about the 1796 LC which I have only casually handled. I also own an original klewang, but not an original 1796. I recall reading somewhere that the hilt proportions of the 1796 are also slightly off, but I can't say for certain.

Unfortunately, the 1917 can't be modified to be perfectly accurate without doing so much work on it that it would probably be easier to make it from scratch. Some things: size of the fuller, distal taper, hilt size, basket size and shape, grip material, several issues with the scabbard, etc. etc. But it doesn't really matter, it is a fine sword by itself, not to mention a great value. And again, there were always differences between makers historically. The only reason I can think of why the 1917 would not be acceptable to Dutch army standards is the shape of the basket, which is bent (in one direction) instead of bowled as the original.

Paul, all those things would not be beyond me to fix. I've tapered blades before, even ground them out straight from bar stock and I've worked a lot with dishing metal. ;)
But I do see your point. I could probably find a decently well kept and fully authentic 1917 somewhere for a reasonable price and a real piece of history, so why bother with all that extra work.

So, back to the Cold steel 1796 LC, which hopefully has more promise.
I re-read an old thread I was part of way back that, among other things dealt with the inaccuracies of the Cold steel version of it. In short, the POB is definitely off and the guard and other fittings have some minor but still annoying inaccuracies. The fittings probably aren't affecting the balance point all that much though. Also, there is some variance between indivitual 1796s so there may be some leeway there.
I also had a look at some photos from other forum members and it looks to me like a lot though not all 1796 LC based sabers were thinner in the blade compared to the CS.
This means that a blade thinning grind would be a good way to fix the biggest issue and just what Darrell set out to do in the first place -to move the COB back toward the handle.

I'm starting to see that all Cold Steel historical blades are DIY project kits you buy to fix up. The blades should be good steel though and keep an edge well. ;)

One of the dynamics where the reproductions fail is the blade stock and distal tapers of the swords. Even in grinding a Cold Steel or Weapon Edge example to reduce foible thickness (which will both make a better cutter but redistribute some mass). A friend went the grinding route for a number of swords, including some Del Tins that worked out beautifully.. N ow this fellow had the opportunity in the past to handle a period 1796 and that was part of his motivation in grinding a Cold Steel.. While the experiment resulted in a better handling and cutting (mats) sword, it is still lacking.

However, last season when putting in his hands some other period swords on my table, the reaction was one by him of

"holy ----"

Most notably still was the overall weight factor. While not a period 1796, I sent him to the stand with a period mounted artillery sabre with less than a modern edge and it was performing at a par with a razor regrinding on the Cold Steel. Go figure. A real difference also is the mass distribution of blades in the 18th century sabres where you will find spine 3/8" or thicker at the hilt, reducing rapidly within the first fingers span and then more gradually with taper past the fuller once more nose diving to wafer thickness. The Cold Steel lacks those properties entirely, even when reground from thinner stock to begin with.

As to the original project; Yes, regrinding will help the feel of the Cold Steel but it will never truly feel like a period 1796. Adding eight to the hilt counter productive and one would be better served by leaving it alone and working with it as is. In that sense, I agree with other thoughts that some should learn to cope with whatever is in hand. The big however though that there really is a difference between period and reproduction sabres we see flooding the market. Some are better than others in capturing the true feel of originals but it is not a common trait.

I own both reproductions and period sabres. I bought a communal period piece for friends to enjoy at the cutting stand. Yes, within the magic budget expected by many of the back yard cutting crowd. With the cost some spend on having a reproduction reworked, they could have found a sound and fun period piece that is not an irreplaceable piece of history.

Here is the direct statistical comparison on blades from the linked thred, just in case someone doesn't want to plod through the last linked.

Quote:

Thanks for the positive feedback. On reflection some of the photographs have suffered in shrinkage to fit onto the forum; some are just plain unsharp, so for that I am sorry.

Here are the vital statistics on the CS88 compared to the O&G sabre in bold print. A mix of metric and imperial units. The 'swell' is the widest part of the blade where the damage is done; visible on the longshot photo's of each sword (and more pronounced on the O&G sabre). The COB is the best approximation as I found that this is harder to measure in a sabre blade.

From these measurements the fist striking difference is the weight; the CS88 being a massive 6 oz. heavier. The hilt on the CS88 is pretty close to the original sword and will only add a similar amount of mass to the overall figure. One can also observe the smaller profile of the CS blade evident in the dimensions above and the side by side photograph on page one. Therefore, the extra weight noted results directly from the CS88's blade thickness and distal taper.

As can be seen the O&G sword has a massively thick blade at the shoulders that dramatically tapers almost immediately in a non-linear fashion. The CS88 starts with smaller stock yet tapers in a more linear style and never achieves the slim/thin dimensions of the original: The CS88 blade is more than twice as thick as the O&G sword at the business end where that famous/feared cutting power is achieved.

For the same reasons the COB falls forward of the mark and on this forum some observers report that the CS88 feels heavy in the hand. Even though the O&G sabre is a brutal troopers' sword it handles beautifully and is incredibly fast. I have no idea about Cold Steel's heat treatment but with it's thicker blade I reckon it will struggle to do the work as well as an original sword. From watching original 1796 sabres in action, one of the most beautiful sights is seeing how much the blade flexes in the cut without breaking; achieved by the broad and thin yet flexible blade.

The original 1796 is regarded as the second best sword the British army ever adopted for its horse: It is a pure cutter with no attempt to compromise on that ability. The CS88 through design or innaccuracy has a stiffer blade with a sharper point (sharpened to 4.5" along the back edge) which would make it a poorer cutter I am sure but maybe a half decent infantry sabre.

Despite the apparent failings the CS88 is well worth the money with a high quality fit and finish and a nice wooden cored scabbard (alas it still has the blunting metal throat so don't be fooled into thinking the blade will survive any better in it). The blade DOES make a good sabre and the sword DOES hande well; just not as well as the originals. Mine is now in Glasgow where she will be reborn with a Stirling hilt (Words and pictures to follow....)

You'll see what I am getting at about the distal properties and stock used for the reproducitons. I have though read of some of the other sabres being made to better proportion, so it is a matter of a user/oowner looking at some specs.

Did someone say sabers? Ahem! Cough. Finally I can shake off the yataghan bug!

A fellow on another forum had the itch for a Cold Steel 1796, but was aware of the nose heaviness issue, and sent the 1796 straight from the vendor to Arms and Armor, who took, if I am rightly recollecting, six ounces off the blade via regrinding. Apparently this did a good bit to alleviate ahistoricity.

I have been chasing my tail on this issue. From what I can tell, to get a modern saber that reflects the design and handling of a vintage saber, one must turn to a high end custom maker such as OllinSword. http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=15703 This was Matthew Korenkiewicz' approach with a Hussar Saber. (And, I might add, one of my favorite custom swords to read about.)

I finally knuckled under and have picked up a as-new-in-box Chilean contract saber from the 19th century, of Klingenthal production. With shipping my purchase price was $330. As a relatively recent saber, with no particular historical importance, I'm willing to roll the dice and do some light cutting with it, at least enough to get a good feel for how it, umm, feels. I would have preferred to purchase a new production saber for such use, but the Windlass/WeaponEdge/Cold Steel facilities simply do not offer such a beast.

Given the relative importance of the saber in Europe over the last four or five hundred years, I am somewhat bemused at the paucity of reproductions on the market, but this serves as yet another reminder that my tastes are a little odd.

Don't think my silence means I've not been paying attention! Gentlemen, you have done a great deal more for me than many others have done in a lifetime!

Currently I am diligently taking notes in my project book about weight distribution you guys are discussing. Hopefully it will be enough to present to my cousin's friend, a former Army fabricator who has helped me with issues in the past, though nothing quite like this. This will take a good deal of forethought and planning on my part to develop.

I feel a bit nervous, but hopefully I can come out with something I can comfortably use.

Cheers to myArmoury forums! The best forum and forum members I have ever encountered!

Regarding the so-called 1917, Weapons Edge recently introduced model WES-1068, which is their version of the Marechaussee dress klewang (with chrome plated blade and hilt). The blade looks the same, but the basket appear to be properly curved now, and the shape of the cut-outs is also better. I think Cold Steel and Weapons Edge are exactly the same swords from the same factory, no?

So, the antique in this case is wider bladed, more spatula shaped tip and has a very thick back, resulting in the typical and to me rather attractive wide flat and rounded tip shape I've seen in museum pieces here in Sweden.
It looks bigger rather than smaller than the Cold Steel 1796 LC though? I'm guessing there were variations in sizes of this type of saber historically since the other thread you posted they talk about the reverse, the CS being oversized.

So the question then, is the Osborn & Gunby 1796 CS, though it looks "bigger" from the side, still lighter than the modern Cold Steel version? It's hard to tell from the photos, but it seems to me that the fuller is less sharply defined on the O & G, which could mean it's more shallow, which in turn may mean the blade is thinner ground but still has a thick back.
A wide blade with a sharp triangle grind, this is an aspect that would in my experience make a light sword for its seeming size and the angle makes it a very good cutter even with little sharpening.

I'd have loved to see a photo of the distall taper also, both from edge and back side.

I had noticed a long time ago that some swords that appear to be from the Weapon Edge source are also sold through Cold Steel. There are some that are certainly somehow connected. The Cold Steel "1917" for instance certainly does look identical to what had been shown on Weapon Edge pages. Here is the best updated page set I have seen but you may have other links.
http://www.historyrelics.com/index.html

Johan

I am hesitant to suggest a specific sword for any to use, as tastes and experience varies wildly. While I have cut with a number of my antiques, the type I bought specifically as a "loaner" is a rather mundane mounted artillery sabre that is not quite the same family as the 1796 light cavalry swords. I spotted a nice sound and clean sword and deemed it myself to be capable and sturdy enough. There are pictures of that in a thread I had started about my sabres. While I have not further sharpened up my generic US 1840 (for instance), it is sound enough to cut with and that might be another possible. Generic 1840 (French 1822) in sound shape run about $500 or so. Then a matter of what one wnats from a sabre.

Some safe bets would be Prussian artillery swords that have the overall profile of a 1796 but the blades are not broad at the point. Late examples have a bakelite like grip and should be sturdy enough for regular use. Another is the Portuguese single ring scabbard British 1821 cavalry model.

I like all types of sabres but spadroons even more, so my expectations of sabre cutting ability are probably less that the mythical 1796.

The reproduction foot officer sword at the bottom is what I bought originally to sharpen and cut with. Hardly the profile of a 1796lc and heavy as sin even after shaving the blade some.

I say mythical 1796 bercause it seems so popular a choice and some feel nothing else is going to suit. The sharp swords from Cold Steel includes the "1830" Napoleonic (he was quite dead by then as well as the empire). At any rate, a sword that got good marks when first appearing, as have a few others.

Cheers

GC

Last edited by Glen A Cleeton on Fri 24 Feb, 2012 9:37 am; edited 2 times in total

I'd have loved to see a photo of the distall taper also, both from edge and back side.

A solution might be to handle originals or study old swords in museums. The characteristics of distal taper not universal but I see some similar traits in even much lighter swords. A French spadroon I had sold off had the same wild concave distal ride from more than 10mm at the hilt, reducing by half in the first ten inches. An epee like spadroon, it finsihed from the fuller at 4mm to the tip to feathering out at less than 1mm.

There are no absolutes but as an aside, handling and viewing period swords can show a lot of what the reproductions lack in cross sections from blades to hilts and particularly grips

Quote:

So the question then, is the Osborn & Gunby 1796 CS, though it looks "bigger" from the side, still lighter than the modern Cold Steel version?

The difference is listed in that quoted post from the SFI thread^^^^^^

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum